MonoChango:I'm not a member but from what I know they started out as a safety organization that helped organize gun competitions.

A brief history of the NRA, and how they got involved with gun control

The NRA was founded in 1871, in the aftermath of the Civil War, by Union officers who were appalled at the level of civilian firearms skill in the US (and what poor shots they made as military recruits). They thought that for better miltiary readiness, the US population should be encouraged to learn marksmanship through shooting sports.

For around a century, that's primarily what the NRA was, an organization dedicated to promoting shooting sports and learning marksmanship and gun safety. When the National Firearms Act of 1934 came around, the act that de-facto banned fully automatic weapons, the NRA didn't seriously oppose it. The thought at the time was that machine guns (i.e. fully automatic guns) were "gangster" weapons without legitimate civilian use for self defense or hunting, a position SCOTUS upheld in the Miller decision.

The NRA started to get involved with gun control in the late '60's. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was opposed by the NRA, not for inherently being gun control, but because it had several provisions in there that were pretty harsh on dealers. (These provisions were later repealed or allowed to sunset).

However, fresh off the success of the '68 act, the nascent gun control movement in the US was emboldened by a Presidential commission report on crime released in '72. This report recommended banning handguns in the US, and confiscating all civilian owned handguns, over a 10 year period, and when combined with strict registration and licensing of rifles/shotguns, making the US a de-facto gun free nation by the early 1980's.

Well, the gun control movement was fueled by this. There was increasing talk of gun control, of banning all guns, of banning handguns, ect in the early to mid 1970's.

Until this point, the people who had been the bulk of the NRA membership had never seen any real attempt to take guns away. For millions and millions of people, gun ownership was just simply a way of life, and that way of life was now under attack from what was seen to be urban liberals.

The NRA mobilized, en masse, to pressure Congress to not even consider further gun control. That whole bit with Charleton Heston holding a gun, saying you could only get it from out of his cold dead hands? That wasn't hyperbole when placed against rhetoric coming from the left about gun confiscation and abolishment at the time.

That's a reason the NRA is so resistant to ANY further gun control, as far as they're concerned, the other side tipped their hand years ago, and know that they want to ban all guns, so they're going to try to do it one bit at a time. One new restriction. One new rule. One new limit, until guns are pretty much gone, along with the way of life they represent.

All it takes is the likes of Gov. Cuomo or Sen. Feinstein saying anything about gun confiscation and that's enough to inflame that old wound for years to come.

So, that's how a marksmanship club founded in the aftermath of the Civil War has become pretty much a devoted anti-gun-control lobbying group.

This letter shall serve as formal resignation of my life membership in the NRA. I ask that you immediately remove my name from your membership roles [sic] and provide me an acknowledgement of this action.

As most in your organization would admit, I have historically been a staunch defender of the NRA purpose and tradition in representing the interests of gun owners. I have personally devoted countless financial resources and time to nurture an intelligent environmental policy that provided for the proud tradition of personal hunting for generations to come.

It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA. As a starting point, one only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as "reasonable"? Furthermore, I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable. In fact, according to a Johns Hopkins University study, 74% say they support background checks.

I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision. The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established. Your current strategic focus places a priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members.

One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners.

In closing I find it important to extend my personal thanks to Chris Cox and David Lehman for their support of so many important environmental issues. I will miss that level of friendship and support, but must take this action based upon my personal feelings toward the distorted values I see emerging within the NRA.

Because they do one thing very, VERY well. They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right. I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators. However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse). Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job. That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.

Its an absolutist position that probably gets thousands of people unnecessarily killed each year, but at least its an ethos.

Because they do one thing very, VERY well. They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right. I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators. However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse). Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job. That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.

And what part of the Manchin compromise was supported by 86% of the population? Is it the part where you'd need to get a background check for buying a gun advertised on a church bulletin board? The part where you'd be taxed 30-120 dollars for a background check? The original Reid bill required you to pass a background check if your buddy loaned you a rifle. Did 86% of the population support that too? If you really believe these numbers put your money where your mouth is and pass an amendmant. With that kind of support it should pass with flying colors.

Because they do one thing very, VERY well. They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right. I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators. However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse). Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job. That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.

PETA also does one thing and does it very well.But they are batshiat insane and will never get one dime of mine or my support.There are other animal welfare organizations out there who aren't insane and who do the job better, who should be getting my support.So I won't be like you and just buy in to "the ends justifies the means".

Clemkadidlefark:The NRA exists to give the average Joe a voice in protecting the Second Amendment

libtards suck communist pickles

This what retarded rednecks actually believe and why the gun industry is booming right now. They have you idiots duped with fear and are making a ton of money. You keep sticking it to those libtards though.

There, there now ... I'm sure any veterinarian or veterinary assistant will tell you that the NRA isn't TRULY malevolent, it's just frightened - and often a frightened animal will lash out in vicious, almost incomprehensible ways.

What's it frightened of? Well, for starters, it's worried that people who refuse to associate with guns, who refuse to foam at the mouth over the 2nd Amendment, might know something it doesn't know: namely, that rational thought and deliberate planning will keep people out of 90 percent of the scenarios in which the NRA envisions a gun might be necessary.

So, in conclusion, someone just needs to throw a towel over the NRA, scoop it up firmly and love it and scratch it behind the ears and reassure it that nothing bad will happen if people are compelled to give up their mobile rocket launchers and rocket-propelled grenades.

cegorach:Do any of you psychopathic 2nd amendment freaks ever travel overseas to nations that have gun control?

Do you FREAK THE FARK OUT when you come to nations like mine and you have to walk the streets unarmed, the one terrified person amongst a crowd of folks who don't equate 'going to the shops' with 'making sure you are packing heat'?

I hate to break this to you, but as a rational Handgun Carry Permit holder, I take offense to this kind of broad brushing of people who own firearms. The majority of HCP/CCW holders are rational people who have less than a 0.1% chance of being involved in crime.

The reason I have my HCP is because I want to be able to protect myself in an area where I know the average Law Enforcement Response Time to a situation where I will have to defend my life in a violent crime is around 5 to 8 minutes, on average. I also work in an area where there is a massive disproportionate amount of violent crime. I'm not terrified of my surroundings, or going unarmed - which I do 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time, you would never know I'm armed to begin with anyway.

And I don't fantasize about killing someone either. It's something I hope that I pay 90 bucks for every five years that I never have to use, period, on any human being.

So stop doing your own side a disservice and using hyperbole to paint all gun owners as "gun freaks".

ciberido:The "fire in a crowded theater" argument is a perfectly valid argument unless you want to take the absolutist position that one person's rights always trump all other considerations, and a civil society built on such an absolutist position simply cannot last.

So you're saying your 'right to feel safe' trumps all my rights?

Sounds absolutist.

Now, if we surgically muted you to prevent the possibility that you might yell fire in a theater, then you'd have a accurate analogy to what you want to do to my rights to own firearms.

Watch the NRA argument switch from ZOMG The government is evil with that Kynan in office and those demmycrats are trying to take away your guns and give people healthcare

to

ZOMG help us Government! People are making working Guns from 3-D printers and taking money away from the helpless gun manufacturers! In the next 5 yearsBe careful for what you wish for NRA, you wanted everyone to have a gun soon you will get your wish. Bet on it

Thunderpipes:Oh, just trust your overlords again, like liberals did when they whined about the Patriot act, which was far less invasive and would impact far, far fewer people. Double standards, how do they work?

That's not an argument against this law, it's an argument against ALL law.

// and FTR, you're not going to find many liberals happy about the PATRIOT Act or its extension

People should be able to arm themselves as they desire: authoritarianThe state should decide who can be armed: not authoritarian

Right-o.

If their only goal was allowing Americans to have guns, then you're right, that per se is not authoritarian. One of the points that Jon Stewart made (and was echoed in this thread), however, is that the speakers at the convention did NOT stick to that one theme, but instead insisted on weaving a number of OTHER issues together with their core pro-gun-rights message. Because of that it, IS valid to comment on the entire package and call it "authoritarian."

smells_like_meat:Yes, this. And the constant demonetization of an entire group of law abiding citizens. "Gun nuts", "small penis", knuckle dragging neanderthals", "Tea baggers", etc., etc. Say that you honestly believe in your anti-gun cause. OK. How do you think that this would be beneficial to your cause?

Being for gun regulation is not the same as being "anti-gun." That's just a straw-man you gun-nuts like to wave around. Also, people who still take Palin, Beck, and the rest of those morons / charlatans seriously are in fact knuckle-dragging teabaggers. Your kind deserves all the mockery it gets.

I sincerely believe that the neanderthals were far smarter than the average gun-nut / Republican voter.

ronaprhys:I'd argue that the background checks now would likely work just fine - but I do remember reading that many states aren't actually collecting all of the data necessary to process them properly. Fixing that doesn't require new laws, it requires fixing the lack of reporting (specifically around mentally unstable types).

Except the NRA fights against increases in funding for reporting and processing that data. "We don't need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws" is a red herring and always has been.

Coastalgrl:Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

Or people with a vague resemblance to the bombers would've gotten shot, or police might've mistaken some wannabe vigilante for an accomplice and shot him, or the bombers could've stolen more weaponry...

Coastalgrl:"I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker.

Which incident? The bombing itself? The last thing I thought when I was watching the immediate aftermath of the bomb going off on Boylston Street was "You know what this chaotic situation could use? Some crossfire."

Thunderpipes:Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They fight against any laws (like the expanded background checks favored by the vast majority of Americans) that would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms. And they've jumped on the same right-wing crazytrain the Tea Party jumped on.

They're not a civil rights group any more. They're a puppet of gun manufacturers and the GOP, existing purely to scare idiots into buying more guns and ammo and voting Republican.

JohnCarter:Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

Uproxx wasn't a clue? And you can be all for gun rights and still realize the NRA are whacko.

Bonkthat_Again:vpb: It used to be more about hunting and gun safety. Not enough money in that I guess.

I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?

People who are afraid of:- Obama- non-caucasians- non-Americans- a long line at the Ponderosa buffet- Messicans taking their jerbs- Obama- the illegality of incest- science- scientists- ... Ah, hell. Basically the entire LOPCATGOPATA

Because they do one thing very, VERY well. They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

You seem like a smart and savvy consumer, not like most of the rubes here on Fark. How would you like, as part of a very special discount to a limited number of people, to be one of the first to buy a case of my brand new rhiocerous repellant?

Bonkthat_Again:I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?

Just a thought, but they probably think they are representing the millions of people that give them yearly dues. It is an "Association" that people voluntarily pay to be a part of. If they didn't represent those people, then they wouldn't get very much money. (I heard that gun companies only give about 10% of the total NRA funding) I'm not a member but from what I know they started out as a safety organization that helped organize gun competitions. But as more power is concentrated into the hands of fewer politicians they have found that it pays to leverage their money into lobbing. Much like any other political organization.

JohnCarter:Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

I'd say gun nut is a very applicable term considering most of the content in those speeches was herp derp that has nothing to do with guns.

Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

Bonkthat_Again:vpb: It used to be more about hunting and gun safety. Not enough money in that I guess.

I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing? A lot of my gun owner friends have shied away from them. Even the gun manufacturers feel like they don;t have a grip on the NRA anymore.

I think they've realized they can get more money and power by being the "Tea Party: with guns!" instead of just focusing on the guns part. I seriously doubt that people like Glenn Beck really give a crap about guns, it's just another way to get an audience.

IMO the background check shouldn't just be for the wannabe gun owner, but also for the people that person lives with. If you're part of a household that includes paranoid schizos (among others), you do not get to own a gun -- or at least not store it in the house.

2. "The camel's nose under the tent" so to use the metaphor. Too many anti-gun types have made it clear they seek banning all or most guns, abolishment of the second amendment, confiscation of personally owned firearms ect.

I have no doubt there are some people like that, but I doubt there are enough to make a difference.

3. Devil is in the details. Okay, so, you want to require background checks for personal sales? How are we going to do this?

You could, for instance, mandate that the people involved in the sale have to go to a govt official who'll make the necessary background check.

If Grampa wants to give his grandson a rifle for his 13th birthday,

Should a 13 year old be allowed to own a rifle? Is a 13 year old allowed to own a car?

4. If we're hopping through all these hoops to stay legal, but there's no way to verify who's being law-abiding and who isn't, then is there any point?

Yeah, what's the point of having laws at all? It's not as if you can verify who's following them or not.

Basically I am unconvinced of the need for it, unconvinced that gun-control advocates will quit after "universal background checks", and unconvinced that it won't substantially increase the burden on regular gun owners.

That's tinfoil-hat talk.

There is one thing about the US: Your gun-culture is nuts. Completely nuts. Norway has about the same number of firearms as the US (pr citizen), but gun-ownership simply isn't an issue. Norwegians have guns mostly for hunting (a very legitimate purpose) and plinking at targets. There are also some collectors. We do not own guns for self-defence or to protect ourselves from the gubmint.

The impression I have is that a large chunk of the US gun culture (certainly the loudest part) is motivated mainly by fear, paranoia, and some bizarre fetishistic ideology.

Wolf_Blitzer:Coastalgrl: Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

Tell your friend this is demonstrably false, because one of the very first modern "mass shootings" happened in Texas.

Jument:That's not a healthy attitude. In your example, that one employee would be poisoning the environment for others. The net effect would be negative on the workplace for everyone. That is exactly like the NRA: the net effect is bad for the country. You belong IMHO because you selfishly want them to defend your gun rights without caring about the cost to the nation.

What's the NRA doing to change the nation? They do seem to associate with a lot of Republicans, but if the NRA were trying to ban abortion or make Christianity the national religion, they'd lose a lot of members (and money). Just as the League of Woman Voters would lose membership if they started backing candidates on a partisan basis (versus, say, a candidate who proposes that women shouldn't be able to vote).

CynicalLA:Doom MD: cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.

Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]

That's what everyone is doing when they read your posts. You obviously really love your guns but don't know shiat about the gun laws that were proposed. Another moran making the pro-gun people look like retards. Replying with insults just makes you look like a bigger idiot.

Thanks for backing up your alt, but the legislation is still dead as it ever was.

It amazes me how Ted Cruz can stand up there and bullshiat those people to their faces, contradicting himself just three minutes apart, and they eat it up. They have completely lost the ability to think critically.

Doom MD:cameroncrazy1984: Doom MD: Legislation is being pushed on all levels of government in this area.

Okay, name one bill in the US congress that is being proposed to confiscate all firearms. What's the number and title?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x200]

That's what everyone is doing when they read your posts. You obviously really love your guns but don't know shiat about the gun laws that were proposed. Another moran making the pro-gun people look like retards. Replying with insults just makes you look like a bigger idiot.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:cameroncrazy1984: BraveNewCheneyWorld: impaler: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid. Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people. That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act, it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal. Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.

You certainly trust the military and police with far more dangerous items. What makes them so incapable of using such items irresponsibly? What makes them better than regular law abiding citizens?

Mainly? Training, identification and a stricter legal recourse when those firearms are used improperly. Have you never heard of the UCMJ?

So you're ok with civilians owning these weapons if they're allowed to take the same courses? Also, there's worse penalties for illegal use of weapons than lethal injection?

Sure, as long as they are treated exactly the same as the military and police. That means investigation every time they discharge their weapon and a tribunal hearing or court martial.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:impaler: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid. Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people. That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act, it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal. Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

Exactly. People should be allowed to buy rocket propelled grenades, as long as they don't use them irresponsibly.

You certainly trust the military and police with far more dangerous items. What makes them so incapable of using such items irresponsibly? What makes them better than regular law abiding citizens?

Mainly? Training, identification and a stricter legal recourse when those firearms are used improperly. Have you never heard of the UCMJ?

ciberido:BayouOtter:So there you go. The next time someone tries to bring up the "fire in a movie theater" argument about how rights can be restricted, point out that their argument is derived from a case in 1919 that had the basic finding that any kind of protest or statement against the government going to war is an act of treason that can be punished however the fark the government sees fit.

That's very interesting, but it's not relevant. The validity of an idea does not depend upon its source.

The "fire in a crowded theater" argument is a perfectly valid argument unless you want to take the absolutist position that one person's rights always trump all other considerations, and a civil society built on such an absolutist position simply cannot last.

No, the "fire in a theater" argument is not valid. Yelling fire in a theater is only illegal when there is no fire, and therefore causes unnecessary panic and danger to people. That means that yelling fire in a theater is not itself an illegal act, it is the irresponsible use of that speech which is illegal. Gun bans and other restrictions on the other hand, are very different, as they make guns illegal regardless of responsible use.

cameroncrazy1984:Doom MD: CynicalLA: Doom MD: ciberido: Doom MD: As flawed as the NRA is, they still managed to kick the crap out of the authoritarian nanny-statists who tried to take a steaming dump on the constitution. Your tears taste delicious.

Tears? You think people who don't agree with the NRA are crying about, well, anything? I guess you must be really happy wrapped up in such a thick cocoon of delusion.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum? It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.

Exactly how does requiring everyone get a background check before buying a firearm stripping someone of a right? If you can pass a background check, you can buy a firearm. Am I missing something?

Background checks aren't even close to what gun control advocates were asking for. They negotiated in bad faith and it's painfully obvious what their endgame is. The "compromise" they asked for is devoid of anything that could be considered compromise. Just asking/demanding one side to give up crap is not a prudent negotiation strategy.

CynicalLA:Doom MD: ciberido: Doom MD: As flawed as the NRA is, they still managed to kick the crap out of the authoritarian nanny-statists who tried to take a steaming dump on the constitution. Your tears taste delicious.

Tears? You think people who don't agree with the NRA are crying about, well, anything? I guess you must be really happy wrapped up in such a thick cocoon of delusion.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

A tantrum? It was more like he was disgusted by the limp-dick legislators that went against the American people.

He lost and you lost. That fake-ass MAIG survery notwithstanding, constitutional rights are constitutional rights. Don't worry, I'm sure some other national tragedy will come along so you can wave the bloody shirt and try to strip people of rights you don't agree with.

ciberido:Doom MD: As flawed as the NRA is, they still managed to kick the crap out of the authoritarian nanny-statists who tried to take a steaming dump on the constitution. Your tears taste delicious.

Tears? You think people who don't agree with the NRA are crying about, well, anything? I guess you must be really happy wrapped up in such a thick cocoon of delusion.

You're right, Obama totally didn't have a tantrum on live TV when this limp-dick legislation came up short on all counts.

In 2010 they had an annual income of $227.8 million. $115 million came from fundraising, sales, advertising (they sell ads in their magazines and publications), and royalties. The remaining $112.8 million came from membership dues, making membership dues the largest single chunk of their income.

Between 2005-2010 they received $14.8 million from more than 50 different firearm-related firms, or just under $3 million per year on average. In 2010 their advertising income, most of it from industry, came to $20.9 million (9.2%). Assuming their total income from industry consists of advertising + corporate donations, that's $20.9 + $3 million = $23.9 million, or about 10.5% of their annual income.Based on their publicly available finances, it sure looks like their mostly speaking for their dues-paying members.

If you're interested in the actual firearms industry trade group, that'd be the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Just like freedom of speech means you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater,

The reference is to the Supreme court case Schenk v. United States. Schenk was a member of the Socialist Party in the US during World War 1 and was arrested for distributing pamphlets to draftees encouraging them to do things to get out of service. The pamphlets had such inflammatory titles as "assert your rights." None of what he was suggesting they do was illegal, and in the subsequent investigation he indicated that he was a pacifist and was against war, period, and doubly against what he saw as a totally bullshiat war being fought only for the narrow economic and imperial interests of a bunch of super-rich Europeans.

He was convicted, his conviction was appealed, and eventually it got up to the Supreme Court. Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion that held his conviction was constitutional. This opinion -and the case itself - are widely considered to be some of the more farked up bits of jurisprudence that early 20th C. supreme courts put out. He said that the government had every right to curtail free speech basically as much as it wants to during wartime because when a nation is at war anything that could be construed as encouraging men not to fight can be seen as a direct attack against that nation. Basically, declaring war creates a de facto legal obligation for citizens to agree with and support the war, constitution be damned. At the very least the government has the right to force anyone who doesn't agree with it to shut up as soon as bombs start dropping.

You can well imagine the implications for, say, anti-war protesting that this case has.

The famous "fire in a movie theater" line is also from this case, and was used by Holmes to argue that the 1st is not an unlimited right. The full quote of it goes as so:Holmes" The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

So there you go. The next time someone tries to bring up the "fire in a movie theater" argument about how rights can be restricted, point out that their argument is derived from a case in 1919 that had the basic finding that any kind of protest or statement against the government going to war is an act of treason that can be punished however the fark the government sees fit. It's a very slightly more articulate version of " If you don't SUPPORT OUR TROOPS you HATE 'MERRICA and the TERRISTS GUNNA WIN. GIT R DUN "

tl;dr: anyone who uses the "fire in a movie theater" line is literally agreeing that all war protesters should be tried for treason. Given your typical gun control advocate, pointing this out in an argument where they float that balloon can have amusing results.

They're not anti-gun, they just disagree with the conclusion of the SCotUS when the SCotUS concluded that it's an individual right to keep and bear arms. Apparently the People in the 2nd Amendment aren't the same People as in the other Amendments. :D

ciberido:I wouldn't go that far. But it does seem that the fundamental difference between the pro-gun and the anti-gun crowd is that the latter do not see gun ownership as a fundamental right, or at least not ownership of ANY gun, including fully-automatic weapons and grenades.

Additionally, even among those who DO see gun ownership as a fundamental right, there is still an argument to be made that even fundamental rights have limits in society. The ur-example is not allowing a person to cry "fire" in a crowded theater (when there isn't actually a fire). That is a reasonable limitation on free speech, and free speech is something that almost all Americans, no matter how conservative or liberal, see as a fundamental right.

I think you're right: this comes down to whether or not you see this as a civil rights issue or not.

Now, I've never advocated for civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons, or of explosive devices.

Just like freedom of speech means you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, like freedom of the press means you can't legally reprint classified government documents, or how freedom of religion means you can't diddle kids under the guise of religious practice, you can't own heavy ordnance and call it "bearing arms".

However, what I am arguing is the same thing SCOTUS found in the Miller case, and built on in Heller and McDonald cases: There is an individual civil right to bear arms for a variety of lawful purposes, as protected by the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense, sport-shooting, and collecting. Any weapon with a bona-fide lawful use for hunting or self-defense should be allowed for civilian use. I believe that these rights should be limited as little as possible, just like we go out of our way to not limit the free exercise of religion or freedom of the press without VERY good reason.

Hand grenades, rocket launchers, and machine guns are not viable for hunting, and not practical for self defense and can be strictly regulated or banned. Handguns are outstanding self-defense weapons. The AR-15 (and similar semi-automatic rifles) is a fine hunting rifle (as well as a nice rifle for target shooting, and in carbine-configurations suitable for home defense). They should be allowed with minimal restriction to law abiding citizens.

Thunderpipes:Dusk-You-n-Me: Thunderpipes: Background checks do take away rights. The right to sell a gun to a friend for example, boom, gone.

A background check does not end your ability to sell a gun to a friend.

It does limit the freedom. You would have to pay basically a tax[1], and register with the government[2]. Would you like to have to pay a free speech fee and register with the government to speak your opinion?

That most certainly is an act of infringement on your rights. We have the right to vote... Would putting in place a fee to vote be okay with you? Why not? How about the right to a jury of your peers? Should a person have to pay for that? Where do you draw the line?

1. Would you say the same thing about sales tax? That paying 3-10% on top of the purchase price "limits your freedom" to buy a handgun?2. The latest bill explicitly forbid collection of records into a centralized database. It's why FFLs keep their own logbooks.

smells_like_meat:Silverstaff: That's a reason the NRA is so resistant to ANY further gun control, as far as they're concerned, the other side tipped their hand years ago, and know that they want to ban all guns, so they're going to try to do it one bit at a time. One new restriction. One new rule. One new limit, until guns are pretty much gone, along with the way of life they represent.

Yes, this. And the constant demonetization of an entire group of law abiding citizens. "Gun nuts", "small penis", knuckle dragging neanderthals", "Tea baggers", etc., etc. Say that you honestly believe in your anti-gun cause. OK. How do you think that this would be beneficial to your cause?

GOP logic: "Not all gun owners are criminals! Don't tread on me because of a few bad apples!""ALL MUSLINS ARE TURRISTS!!1!!"

JohnCarter:Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

Plenty of gun owners (myself included) are happy to acknowledge those people are nuts... I'm against the AWB, magazine limits, and a litany of other proposals... but I cannot, for the life of me, think of any reason a responsible gun owner would be against universal background checks. The NRA exists to represent manufacturers and extremists, not responsible, sane, gun owners.

Wolf_Blitzer:Silverstaff: The NRA says and does a lot of stupid things.

I still pay them membership dues. Why?

Because they do one thing very, VERY well. They are very good at lobbying against increased gun control.

If I want to oppose attacks on my Second Amendment civil rights, I know the ACLU will take a selective blind spot to that civil right. I, as a private citizen, have very limited ability to influence my legislators. However, together with several million of my fellow Americans, we can and do.

Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I vote how they tell me to (at most, I'll listen to recommendations, but I voted Obama because Romney was all-around worse). Just because I pay dues to them doesn't mean I agree with every dumbass thing their spokespeople say.

However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

It's a little like having an employee that says dumb shiat at work, is neglectful of hygiene, is rude to his co-workers and generally unpleasant, but he's OUTSTANDING at the actual core task of his job. That is what the NRA is to me, something that is outstanding at it's one core task, even if it has many failings on the side.

Its an absolutist position that probably gets thousands of people unnecessarily killed each year, but at least its an ethos.

Less than 400 deaths a year come from rifles of which assault weapons are a part of. So ignorance of stating thousands must be your ethos.

Begoggle:PETA also does one thing and does it very well.But they are batshiat insane and will never get one dime of mine or my support.There are other animal welfare organizations out there who aren't insane and who do the job better, who should be getting my support.So I won't be like you and just buy in to "the ends justifies the means".

PETA isn't exactly fighting the repeal of animal cruelty laws, though. They had a goal, they achieved it, and their mission warped to perpetuate the bureaucracy rather than to achieve the initial goals. The NRA fights and continues to fight to maintain gun rights against what are incremental encroachments (see: Social Justice). So there's a substantial difference between the two groups within the terms on which you compare them.

ronaprhys:They also don't have our Constitution and history, nor our culture. Comparisons cross culture don't work particularly well.Also, firearm manufacturing isn't particularly difficult. It really hasn't changed much at all since the turn of the century and anyone with any mechanical sense can do it with relative ease. I don't disagree that the items are different, but Prohibition in the United States has never worked. If we want something, we'll get it. Plain and simple.

Joe Blowme:Begoggle: That NRA convention looks like they got all the craziest of the absolute crazy to be key speakers.Republicans, your party has officially been hijacked by psychopaths.Any conservatives remaining that are sane should bail and form their own new party.

As opposed to actual ELECTED dems who say things like global warming is going to turn women into hookers? Or did they say something even more retarded?

Are you trying to make pro-gun people look like complete retards? If so, please continue.

Wade_Wilson:ronaprhys: His statement was that the best way to thwart anti-gun activists was to pay his dues and let the NRA fight the fight. Objectively, that seems to be true. Feinstein's nonsense was stopped and it's difficult to argue that they didn't have a large role in that. Same with the other proposals that were put forth. Not getting the AWB renewed? Seems like they played a big roll in that.

I'm not saying I agree with their tactics and all of their stances, but I don't think you can argue their effectiveness.

Not my point. In any debate, you have both reasonable people who discuss the matter and compromise like adults, and psychopaths who rant and rave, but get attention because they are louder than their peers. Both groups are found on both sides.

There are both reasonable gun owners who want hunting rifles, and maybe a handgun or two to defend their families if anything ever went down, and there are nuts who think everyone would act civilly if we all carried RPGs. On the other side there are people who think maybe we should have more background checks and a limit on magazine size, and there are buffoons who want to kick down the door and confiscate anything deadlier than a Nerf product.

What matters is who is allowed to dominate the conversation. Right now I don't see anyone on the "kick down the door" side being taken seriously, and no legislation of that kind even being suggested. The "let's arm lunch ladies so no one cuts in line" crowd, however, is getting standing Os.

The purpose of the extremists, despite what they have to say on the matter, is to cancel each other out so that hopefully sanity reigns. But right now the NRA is looking far too nutty to be considered reasonable, and like it or not, they are the face of gun owners in the US. They'd tone it down if it were costing them money, but if people are paying even if they disagree, why should they? They don't know (or care) if the dollars you send are in support of their behavior or not. A kid wh ...

Instead of trying to get arround a constitutional right by nefarious means, maybe they should do it the proper way and have a propasal to change the amendment and ratification of said proposal, you know, the right and legal way to change the constitution? After allif the "90% want it" is in fact true then 2/3 should be no problem right?

ronaprhys:His statement was that the best way to thwart anti-gun activists was to pay his dues and let the NRA fight the fight. Objectively, that seems to be true. Feinstein's nonsense was stopped and it's difficult to argue that they didn't have a large role in that. Same with the other proposals that were put forth. Not getting the AWB renewed? Seems like they played a big roll in that.

I'm not saying I agree with their tactics and all of their stances, but I don't think you can argue their effectiveness.

Not my point. In any debate, you have both reasonable people who discuss the matter and compromise like adults, and psychopaths who rant and rave, but get attention because they are louder than their peers. Both groups are found on both sides.

There are both reasonable gun owners who want hunting rifles, and maybe a handgun or two to defend their families if anything ever went down, and there are nuts who think everyone would act civilly if we all carried RPGs. On the other side there are people who think maybe we should have more background checks and a limit on magazine size, and there are buffoons who want to kick down the door and confiscate anything deadlier than a Nerf product.

What matters is who is allowed to dominate the conversation. Right now I don't see anyone on the "kick down the door" side being taken seriously, and no legislation of that kind even being suggested. The "let's arm lunch ladies so no one cuts in line" crowd, however, is getting standing Os.

The purpose of the extremists, despite what they have to say on the matter, is to cancel each other out so that hopefully sanity reigns. But right now the NRA is looking far too nutty to be considered reasonable, and like it or not, they are the face of gun owners in the US. They'd tone it down if it were costing them money, but if people are paying even if they disagree, why should they? They don't know (or care) if the dollars you send are in support of their behavior or not. A kid who gets candy when he's both good and bad as no reason to ever be good.

ronaprhys:And I disagree. Gun grabbers have tried a variety of laws and they consistently seem to fail. In fact, removing restrictions seems to result in either no negative impact or a downward trend in firearm deaths in that locality, whereas restricting private firearm ownership seems to result in the opposite.

Also, there's the complete fallacy that making something illegal has ever had much impact in the US. Prohibition and illegal drugs are two great examples of that.

Couldn't disagree more. Gun nuts argue against restrictions on full automatics, because they're "hardly ever used in crimes". Well geniuses, its because they've been almost completely illegal since within a few years of their invention. I'd say that's been pretty effective.

What's to get? I know you cool-headed gun-grabbers are always slow to discuss doing something about mass shootings -- which is why it's always "too soon" to discuss solutions after said mass shootings -- but the "let's not do something rash like we did when we were cool with the PATRIOT Act" approach is absolute bullshiat. There is no way a background check not unlike that which the NRA...oops, that is, the GOP senators rejected recently, would have made said shootings worse, though the common argument has been, "Wouldn't'a done nothing to stop Sandy Hook, so fark it," which is the same rationale for that time when speed limits were abolished, since they didn't stop a fatal car crash. Quit making bullshiat excuses when you're just scared that it might be slightly less convenient for you to play tough guy with a gun at a firing range or a wooded area.

ItchyMcDoogle:It used to be that there was a slight common understanding between the NRA and anti gun people that the bottom line was that they both agreed that needless gun deaths are unacceptable. Both had different ideas how to go about it but things could be done because there was that common shared belief.

Now from looking at the convention that is not the case. Its all bang bang, only way to deal with a gun is another gun, and a full scale attack on not just the anti-gun people but the whole progressive democratic agenda. It was more like a republican/tea party convention then a NRA convention. If you're a Democrat you're the enemy kinda thing

Good luck with that NRA

The last time the NRA supported a gun control measure, it was because black people were carrying guns. That ship sailed long ago.

Coastalgrl:I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?

I have vaguely similar ideas. I've built a couple of bows (badly, but it's still fun to target shoot with something you've made with your own two hands). I would like everyone who owns a gun or a car to be responsible and trained in basic safety measures.

I'll push things a little further - see what you think: I think that being able to handle a gun safely should be considered one of those areas of basic knowledge that people acquire as they grow up. I'm not saying that every kid should be forced to know it, any more than every kid should be forced to learn how to drive or to swim. I'm saying that there should be no social stigma attached to learning how to tell if a gun is loaded, how to check the safety, how to unload it, etc.

What do you think - have I taken things further than you're comfortable with?

EyeballKid:Silverstaff: Funny thing is, when something bad in this country happens, there's so often a rush to "do something" with legislation. Crap like that is how we got the PATRIOT Act. Let's not double down on that derp with gun control right after some senseless shooting that while tragic, is a statistical outlier in an overall downward trend in violent crime.

I know, right? Imagine how bad Aurora or Newtown would have looked had background checks been in place!

Wade_Wilson:Silverstaff: However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

I disagree. I know many responsible gun owners, and any time the NRA comes up in the conversation, they are pretty quick to distance themselves. Even the ones who ARE members.

Their behavior is so extreme of late that they give gun opponents a handy target to beat up on, and make the rest of you look bad by association. They represent you about as well as PETA represents animal lovers.

Giving them money just encourages them. I guarantee they'd start to act more reasonably if (and only if) failing to do so was costing them money.

His statement was that the best way to thwart anti-gun activists was to pay his dues and let the NRA fight the fight. Objectively, that seems to be true. Feinstein's nonsense was stopped and it's difficult to argue that they didn't have a large role in that. Same with the other proposals that were put forth. Not getting the AWB renewed? Seems like they played a big roll in that.

I'm not saying I agree with their tactics and all of their stances, but I don't think you can argue their effectiveness.

You're not a freedom fighter protecting your liberties from an evil tyrant. You're a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get everything you want.

EyeballKid, 2013

This x100. Why don't you guys just stop lying and be truthful about your selfish reasons? People would respect it a lot more than the pathetic comparisons.

Because I'm not lying, and I'm not being selfish.

What I want:

1. To be able to own semi automatic pistols with ammo with high stopping power (like hollow point) for defense of my home and family, and to carry that weapon in a concealed fashion for self defense after going through proper background checks and training/verification of skill (I do have a concealed weapons permit).

2. To own semi automatic rifles such as an AR-15 for target shooting purposes. While I don't hunt, I would like to think that I could go hunting with it if I chose to.

3. To be able to sell, swap and exchange firearms with friends and acquaintances that are gun enthusiasts without fear that we're going to PMITA prison for some tiny technical violation of Federal law

(Note, every one of those 3 things is legal right now)

4. To be able to engage in the above three things without interference from well meaning but misguided individuals in attempts to "do something" about a non-existent crime problem or who feel threatened or unsafe by the very existence of guns.

Funny thing is, when something bad in this country happens, there's so often a rush to "do something" with legislation. Crap like that is how we got the PATRIOT Act. Let's not double down on that derp with gun control right after some senseless shooting that while tragic, is a statistical outlier in an overall downward trend in violent crime.

Silverstaff:However, backing them is the best way to thwart anti-gun activists and their legislative pressure, so I pay my dues.

I disagree. I know many responsible gun owners, and any time the NRA comes up in the conversation, they are pretty quick to distance themselves. Even the ones who ARE members.

Their behavior is so extreme of late that they give gun opponents a handy target to beat up on, and make the rest of you look bad by association. They represent you about as well as PETA represents animal lovers.

Giving them money just encourages them. I guarantee they'd start to act more reasonably if (and only if) failing to do so was costing them money.

Coastalgrl:I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?

Coastalgrl:Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

Tell your friend this is demonstrably false, because one of the very first modern "mass shootings" happened in Texas.

optimus_grime:i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...

I know you're being sarcastic, but having a Phalanx turret for your house is not allowed.

A Phalanx CIWS turret is obviously fully automatic. Fully automatic weapons are strongly restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which de facto banned fully automatic weapons from civilian ownership. (Yeah, there are some exceptions, they're expensive, hard to get, and you won't get one for a Phalanx turret).

This was upheld by SCOTUS in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Basically, Congress cannot inherently ban a weapon as long as it meets a two-pronged test:1. It has a legitimate and lawful civilian use. Self defense counts for this. So does hunting. (Fully automatic weapons failed on this, can't really hunt with a machine gun, and they aren't very practical for self defense).2. It's in common use. If it's a common weapon, then it's what is accepted by the society of the time.

I have actually found a number of my real-life friends who are pro-gun-control don't know this. They have it in their heads that right now, today, you can just walk into a gun shop and buy a fully automatic gun on the spot. Full-auto weapons were made very tightly restricted almost 80 years ago, and under no circumstance can any full auto weapon made after 1986 be lawfully owned by a civilian in the US.

You're not a freedom fighter protecting your liberties from an evil tyrant. You're a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get everything you want.

EyeballKid, 2013

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."-C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

I lean towards the liberal side of things normally but I try to hit the middle of the road on a lot of issues. I think my viewpoints on this is actually changing.

Something that a friend of mine said really made me stop and think. He has lived in Cambridge for a number of years and works at MIT. In response to the bombings and subsequent manhunt he said "I can't help but think if concealed carry would have been more common here, then this incident may have been resolved quicker. No one would ever try this in Texas".

I know lots of people I would never trust with a gun. But I know plenty who are adept at firearms. I personally do not have a handgun even though I enjoy target shooting on occasion. My fear is that if I ever was in a fight, someone would be able to easily overpower me and take the gun leaving me to get shot with my own weapon. I grew up in a strictly anti-gun household and when I do go target shooting, I am very careful with it and slightly nervous. I go with friends who are very experienced and regularly attend safety seminars. I want to try archery as a compromise. Get my kicks off of target shooting but with less explosions.

Instead of this yes or no to guns, Id like to see those that want to own guns and are responsible basic safety trained people, can with no restrictions. I have a feeling most of this ammunition and cartridge based ideas really would just piss off the people who enjoy shooting rather than do anything to curtail gun violence. As for assault weapons, I really don't know. I'm one of the people who thought onealready needed a federal registration to own a gun. Perhaps a license at each state to pass a safety course like a drivers' license would be a good idea.

I don't want to lose any more personal freedoms and privacy.

I should know better on Fark but does anyone else have a viewpoint like above?

optimus_grime:i'm curious about the upper limit of the 2nd amendment...

i just really want to put a phalanx weapon system on my roof.

is that cool?

if so, why not?

maybe it would better in my foyer, pointed out the front door hmmm...

Oh I love this line of argument. Usually, the gun nuts will tell you that the 2nd Amendment obviously doesn't apply to heavy machine guns, or artillery, or nukes. But let them put their guard down for a moment (i.e. get the slightest bit drunk) and they'll tell you how being denied their right to own rocket launchers is the greatest assault against liberty since Kristallnacht.

ronaprhys:spawn73: Thunderpipes: Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.

Good to see that you don't actually understand how that whole organized militia works, nor that this is only one aspect of the 2A, not the sole reason for it.

Then why, in this day and age, does the 2nd Amendment exist? It isn't for a 'well-regulated militia', since that was rendered irrelevant when we established a standing army. And it can't be to fight governmental tyranny because...well, we have a standing army, with tech that makes anything available to civilians about as effective as hurling pebbles. So what, pray tell, is the reason you speak of?

/For the record, I'm not for repealing the 2nd, nor am I for banning guns. I AM for better background checks and fewer loopholes to avoid background checks.

spawn73:Thunderpipes: Have yet to see a single argument by the left why the NRA is bad, one that makes any sense.

They are fighting to keep the 2nd amendment. How could that possibly be bad?

Is the ACLU bad?

They're misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. Random people owning guns does not constitute an organised militia.

I guess you have a GED in Law. Try reading up on your actual Constitutional Law sometimes. Start with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is not directly connected to militia service. The "right to bear arms" and "militia" clauses of the amendment are not legally directly related to each other.

Doesn't matter if you're in a militia or not, you still have the basic right to bear arms in the US.

Silverstaff:That's a reason the NRA is so resistant to ANY further gun control, as far as they're concerned, the other side tipped their hand years ago, and know that they want to ban all guns, so they're going to try to do it one bit at a time. One new restriction. One new rule. One new limit, until guns are pretty much gone, along with the way of life they represent.

Yes, this. And the constant demonetization of an entire group of law abiding citizens. "Gun nuts", "small penis", knuckle dragging neanderthals", "Tea baggers", etc., etc. Say that you honestly believe in your anti-gun cause. OK. How do you think that this would be beneficial to your cause?

If people are being killed in incidents that could be prevented by public safety laws and the NRA is preventing public safety laws then the NRA is responsible for people being killed due to the absence of public safety laws.

By gravely restricting or essentially abolishing a basic civil right?

So, just think how many lives we could save if we abolished the 4th amendment. Just have random police searches of houses and cars. Random roadblocks. Arrest people for contraband or warrants. Think how many criminals we could sweep up, how many lives we could save. . .just at the cost of just a little freedom, just one more amendment.

If people are being killed in incidents that could be prevented by public safety laws and the NRA is preventing public safety laws then the NRA is responsible for people being killed due to the absence of public safety laws.

Horseshiat. What you've said is absolute horseshiat. How would the laws have prevented the Colorado theater shooting? Sandy Hook? VA Tech - maybe, as the shooter should've been registered in his state as mentally unstable and thusly prevented from making the firearm purchase. Background checks? They already exist for all non private party sales. All dealers must exercise background checks. Banning evil black rifles? That didn't work worth a shiat last time it was tried.

If people are being killed in incidents that could be prevented by public safety laws and the NRA is preventing public safety laws then the NRA is responsible for people being killed due to the absence of public safety laws.

The assumption the initial post (with the lmgtfy) made was that all firearm deaths were preventable; if only we'd passed legislation that the NRA alone was responsible for blocking, all these deaths would not have occurred. It's not accurate.

If people are being killed in incidents that could be prevented by public safety laws and the NRA is preventing public safety laws then the NRA is responsible for people being killed due to the absence of public safety laws.

clintster:Which is odd, since the NRA leadership seems to be doing everything in their power to increase gun sales through fear.

Looking at the availability of select types of firearms(anything resembling 'tactical') and ammunition, it's working like a champ. All the AR-15 manufacturing companies are operating at full bore and there's STILL a six month wait for a lot of them.

vpb:It used to be more about hunting and gun safety. Not enough money in that I guess.

1. Hunting - Demographics have changed. Today most gun owners aren't hunters. Most own for target shooting/self defense. Thus the NRA's priorities have shifted.2. Safety - The safety issue is 'pretty much' handled, but the NRA still runs it's safety programs. It's just not sexy to report on the news that the NRA is having an 'Eddie Eagle' training program at the local schools, assuming that the school will let them due to politics. Eddie Eagle mostly consists of 'STOP! DON'T TOUCH! GET AN ADULT!', but apparently that's still evil for some administrators.

JohnCarter:Somehow..when you start your article with "the NRA held it's annual gun nut convention" this sort of highlights the fact that this is not an actual news article or even a TV review but a thinly veiled editorial wherein the writer is not a gun ownership supporter.

well there's owners. and there are crazy people with guns who believe the liberal govt jackbooted thugs are knocking on your door just as soon as you close your eyes. and the only thing keeping them at bay are you and your peashooter.

MonoChango:they probably think they are representing the millions of people that give them yearly dues. It is an "Association" that people voluntarily pay to be a part of. If they didn't represent those people, then they wouldn't get very much money.

If you read the NRA email broadcasts, it's pretty obvious there money comes from telling impressionable, low-information people that they are threatened, and the NRA needs money to fight for them.

For normal people the NRA funding pleas have all the legitimacy of a Nigerian email scam.

But a significant number of rubes can be fooled into sending them money again and again.

vpb:Marcus Aurelius: The whole thing was an embarrassment. And I used to belong to this nuthouse.

It used to be more about hunting and gun safety. Not enough money in that I guess.

The surveys show that fewer and fewer people are buying guns. But the few who are buying are buying more, so the NRA, the marketing arm of gun manufacturers are just catering to this new market segment to encourage even more purchases.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:Bonkthat_Again: I'm just curious who, the NRA is actually representing?

"[Incoming president] Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits."

I think this is a case of the gun manufacturer's creation (the "new" i.e. rabidly partisan NRA) going beyond what they intended and losing control. Much like the astroturfers who created the Tea Party to attack Obama but found the result to be Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin.